Clark's letter in NYT today- The WH didn't call him after 911?

[Rose Siding]

I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on "Meet the Press," quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about "people around the White House" seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein.

I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.

In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.

WESLEY K. CLARK
Little Rock, Ark., July 18, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/13/opinion/L13CLAR.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fLetters

I thought he told MTP that the WH or the Bush admin called him in the days after 911. Didn't he tell them he'd talk about the Iraq connection on TV if they gave him the evidence? :shrug:

[molly]

1. I remember that all he said was that he received a phone

call - we all assumed it was from the WH. Someone got to him.

[walkon]

2. As I Remember It

You are exactly right. I think he said officials connected to the WH. Now he is backing away from any connection to the WH? Now it's a Canadian "think tank" that wanted to go to war with Iraq? Why can't he just say Karl called from Canada?

[Rose Siding]

3. That may just be how the press represented it afterwards

I know that's the impression I got- that the admin had called him. I'll have to hunt up what he actually said.

He may just be tying up with loose ends if he's planning a run.

edit- Here's the quote. He didn't say the WH called but it was implied, imo:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

[hippiechick]

10. "I'm willing to say it" ???

oooohhh ..... that's a problem.


:hippie:

[zekeson]

31. Why is that a problem?

He is willing to say it. However, he asked for evidence. None forthcoming, so, rightfully, he didn't say it. He was willing to say it if the information was true and accurate. It wasn't, so he didn't support it. Critical thinking skills required.

[ima_sinnic]

39. anybody on a called-in-favors basis with the WH is suspect

n/t

[zekeson]

44. Not called in favors

He is a commentator. He surely has hundreds of sources, many people who call him to offer their views. Kinda like a politician. He rejected the statement and principle. How about evaluating what he did instead of evaluating the job he does and your perception? Its effectively the same role a polictian plays. He chose the correct side, so lets move on and expend energy defeating *.

[Kahuna]

51. No it's not. It's just a bunch of deanie babies getting over excited..

about a non issue like they always do. The transcript is linked below by sfecap. Read it and weep.

[Kahuna]

21. The statement doesn't say that the call on 9/11 was from the WH....

There's two parts to his answer. The first part about the WH etc, was 'during the fall of 2001.' Then he goes on to say that he got a call on 9/11..... That event is not connected to the other calls during the fall.

[ima_sinnic]

25. you're grasping at straws

he got call(s) asking him to connect 9/11 and Hussein and he mentioned the White House. Then he comes back a long time later and says oh, no, not the White House, some "Middle Eastern think tank outside of the country." Waffler and puppet.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kahuna]

12. Those think tank officials could be connected to the WH...

while not being from the WH.

I think what happened here is that Clark believes they are connected to the WH but may not be able to make the connection in a tangible way. This is the way I have always interpreted his statements. I never thought he would be able to prove the officials were directly connected with the WH. Henceforth, I never engaged in...what if.

[ima_sinnic]

41. well great, he's friends with people "connected to the WH"

who feel free to enlist him to say things for him. big whoop, I'm really impressed--NOT

[Kahuna]

26. No he didn't. Read the transcipt posted below again. His answer..

refers to the fall of 2001 and on 9/11.

[sfecap]

4. Here's the transcript:

Meet The Press 6/15/03


MR. RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?

GEN. CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.

MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I...

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and
didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp

[Kahuna]

43. thanks for posting the transcript, Little Buddy. It proves that

Clark never said he received a call from the WH on 9/11. He said he received a call. But he never said what the source was. Good boy. :7

[juajen]

5. Yes, that is what I remembered.

N/T

[onecitizen]

6. That's what I thought too. nt

nt

[graham67]

7. I think....

the press insinuated more than what he actually said. Go figure.

[Cocoa]

9. If you read that transcript

with no commentary from the press, I think you'd have to say it's Clark's fault if anyone misunderstood him.

My reaction to this has always been that he should just say who called him.

Just like now, even though he should be commended for clearing up the confustion, why doesn't he say exactly who called him.

[tameszu]

16. Clark has previously tried to clarify his position

If it was his fault for not being clear enough--and, remember, these are extemporaneous comments in reaction to Russert, who's actually a pretty sharp questioner, at least with Democrats--then he took responsibility for it. This isn't the first time he's tried to clarify his comments--see his interview with Diane Rehm on NPR, several weeks ago.

[berry]

61. Also, note the date on Clark's letter in the NYT--July 18

I wonder if he had to call them and press them to publish it?

Like Cocoa, I wish he'd just give the names. But I agree that he did not mispeak on MTP--although the possibility that the two statements would be linked was there just because he said 1) the WH was pushing for a link to al-Qaida/a reason to attack Iraq and (immediately after that) 2) he received a call asking him to join in the chorus sing the WH song. Personally, I think that if the MTP transcript had just paragraphed between the 2 points, this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. And probably if one could watch or listen to the interview, this would be clear (especially in hindsight--at the time, many of us were probably eager to hear clear evidence of the WH management of the news. Clark's clarification doesn't mean that the news management wasn't happening, just that he can't prove it. At least that's my read, given what we know now.)

Everyone who speaks extemporaneously runs the risk of being misinterpreted or even of mispeaking (as BBC's Gilligan and Dean have recently been accused of). In the worst cases (as with Gore in the 2000 campaign), words are twisted by master propagandists and called lies. IMO, anyone who pushes the argument that this-proves-he's-a-rat is playing a dangerous game that can only benefit the GOP spin machine. I'm pretty sick of vicious attacks on the Dem candidates. What I want is discussion of their positions, their records, their affiliations, and their chances of winning. Without venom if possible. (I know, dream on--no wonder candidates have to have thick skin.)

[Kahuna]

17. True but, I always interpreted it as a mish mosh of voices from all over

whether directly or indirectly from the WH. I always thought that if the WH had anything to do with it, it would have been indirect.

[OKNancy]

8. I always thought it was a Canadian think tank

You guys are remembering wrong, because I remember a thread on DU that I contributed to about the Canadian think tank. I joked that it was probably connected to David Frum ( the axis of evil guy).
Now, admittedly he was in the Whitehouse, but it was always my impression it was a Canadian think tank.

I think it was more a wound-up DU thing that happens so often. Everybody wants a smoking gun so bad that people get a little nuts.

[tameszu]

13. "it was probably connected to David Frum ( the axis of evil guy)"

That's actually probably accurate.

David Frum is really big among the small but well-funded (yet fortunately federally hapless) pond that is the right in Canada.

[glarius]

58. Canada's right wing party is lucky if it gets 12% support at election time

David Frum is a joke up here!...I think that's why he left...He knew his right wing agenda was going no where in Canada!...By the way the right wing party is the Canadian Alliance Party....They are laughable!

[Rose Siding]

14. I don't see anything about Canada in the transcript

And I don't see anything wound up or nutty about hearing someone talk about the WH, hear in the next sentence about a phone call and then connecting the two thoughts.

[DUreader]

18. Sorry, but there was a quote, an answer to a direct question

Q: Who?

A: "It came from the White House"

And He waits a month to clarify it?

Something stinks here and it is not DU jumping to conclusions.

Typically there was virtually ZERO press follow-up on a stunning

statement, from Clark.

[Kahuna]

22. His answer is to two separate questions. There's the part about the calls

'during the fall'... and the call he got specifically on 9/11. Nowhere does he say that the call on 9/11 was from the white house or any where else. Read it again.

[DUreader]

29. Again, it does not seem to read that way, to me...

Since it is a transcript , I am willing to believe it sounded different when spoken.

Also I read above that he has tried to clarify this sooner.

Still it seems odd to me.

[Kahuna]

40. Well, you have to imaging it in the context of rapid fire questions from

Tim Russert. He got out what he wanted to say. He did kind of smash the two events together so that one might get the impression that they were together. But, when you read the words, it's apparent that he never said, he got a call from the white house on 9/11. You cannot point to any words in the transcript that state that.

[fob]

57. If you read the transcript again, "it came from the WH" part is his

answer to the PREVIOUS question by dickhead russert.

My first reaction to the quote was that he WAS tying the WH to the call he took. But it didn't make any sense for this super-secret tight-lipped bunch of liars in the bush* admin to call a Clinton guy. That's just NOT their m-o. My readthroughof the above posted transcript with the 2 or 3 preceding Q and A's make's it clear. He is continuing his answer about the chatter in the fall(that it came from the WH, around the WH and other places), then goes onto relate the call he received from a "mideast thinktank" group and was unable to further becasue they provided no proof.

Full Disclosure

Not currntly decided on a candidate
Lean to Sharpton at the moment

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Since when does the U.S. take its marching orders from

a think-tank outside the country? And why was the administration and this "think-tank" on the same page?

[Rose Siding]

15. What made Clark certain

that they were on the same page?

[Kahuna]

23. the think tank (read: Israel?) was prior to 9/11. He never said..

who or what entity made the call on 9/11. Read it again.

[Cocoa]

27. why is there so much confusion about what Clark said?

could it be the fault of Clark's coyness?

I've seen Clark once on TV, and it was an extremely frustrating experience, for me and for the interviewer. I think it was George S. on ABC.

I kept thinking, why did he even agree to the interview if he's going to try so hard not to reveal where he's coming from, on anything?

That was my impression. Like I said, it's just from one interview.

[Kahuna]

33. The transcript of what was said speaks for itself. If you can't

distinguish that he is describing two events, not one, you have a problem, not me. He says that he received a call on 9/11. Where in the transcript does it say that the call he received on 9/11 was from the WH? I'll help you out. NOWHERE.

[ima_sinnic]

36. who gives a crap about semantics?

the man is purposely vague and, apparently from other posters' observations of him in interviews, it is pervasive. I want someone straightforward and courageous. He seems too easily manipulated and then vague about who asked him to do what when. Not the way I want a president to act. Dean doesn't have the WH or "think tanks" calling him up asking him to give fake stories, using him as their front man to mouth their lies.

[paulk]

49. Dean wasn't a pundit

on national t.v.

[Cocoa]

38. before he clarified it, did you think he meant the White House?

a lot of people did, including me. Though I had doubts, due to his not naming who exactly called him.

Were you under the same mistaken impression the rest of us were?

[Kahuna]

45. Kind of... It was such a mish mosh to me as I watched it... I was

never sure that he meant the WH. So, I never ran with it. I tend to be a very literal person. That way I avoid accusing people of things or unjustly accusing them.

[Bushfire]

19. Sounds like he's about to throw his name in the ring soon

by getting anything potentially controversial out of the way. Last I heard he was waiting until after Labor Day, but this could move things up a bit.

[Kahuna]

24. Yepper!

Run Wesley, run!

[ima_sinnic]

20. I have not understood people's fascination with a career military

person--and now I understand it even less.
No way will I support someone who can be so easily programmed to say this or that. He gets calls from the White House, or from think tanks, or whoever, and agrees to say what they want? He won't name whoever called him? He waffles around making vague statements that he later "clarifies," very UNclarifyingly, in letters to the editor of the NYT? He doesn't have the guts to just come out and campaign for Demo nomination, or even commit himself to a particular party for the nomination? He is waiting for what?

Give me a break! This is prime PUPPET MATERIAL. No way will I switch from Dean or anyone else who has had the GUTS to stick his/her neck out and start campaigning, blasting Bush, setting him/herself up for media attacks and misrepresentations, etc. NOT IMPRESSED. I want someone distanced from the corruption, not on their strings.

[tameszu]

28. He DID NOT agree to say what they want...

...because they had no evidence. He was asking them to "show him the evidence" and he was convinced by their evidence and message, then he was willing to carry it--that's how active political discourse works by the way. They DIDN'T, so he DIDN'T. In fact, the record clearly shows that he wound up doing the opposite--appalled by their lack of evidence, he went and publicly declared the wrongness of their doctrine, loudly and frequently.

That's the entire point of the interview.

I completely respect your intention to stick with Dean. I think he could make a strong pres candidate.

But you cannot honestly deny that Wesley Clark has been one of the strongest and most credible voices out there in criticizing the Bush Admin's insane foreign policy. Considering the current Bush-friendly media environment, it doesn't strike me as a good idea for you to begrudge this.

[ima_sinnic]

34. he said, "yes I'll say it--and oh, btw where's your evidence?"

(paraphrase). why didn't he say, "no, not without evidence"--?

[Kahuna]

37. Whew! Grasping at straws. I smell a whiff of desperation in the air.

:eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

48. I think you better investigate your man deeply

before you commit yourself. From my research, I'm not liking what I'm seeing. Sorry but I now have to go to an appointment but I am going to come back with a bunch of links to unsavory stories.

[Kahuna]

50. Just make sure that your links aren't

from whacko commie websites. Please. How much do I want to bet they will be though? :eyes:

[shance]

59. Thanks**** This looks pretty inauthentic by Clarke.

I don't care how much anyone wants someone to be the Lone Ranger (in any situation), if he's not the Lone Ranger, it doesnt do any good to put him in a costume.

Seems to me you either stand by what you said or make a clear and concise clarification to the contrary. His clarification seems pretty vague, and it sounds like it came out of nowhere. I dont know I havent read the full transcript.

Now for all you Clarke groupies, who make us Deanocrats look like flower children. Im sure the guy Clarke is a GOOD guy, got it GOODGOODGOOD but the reason I dont like this action is because he had the guts to say what I thought was a courageous comment. That is why a lot of Americans have jumped on the bandwagon.

HOWEVER,

what effort has he put out to get to know the American people,

what real and constructive anger (and commitment) has he shown that wasnt just RETRACTED,

what effort is he revealing that he cares to find out what our concerns as Americans are,

Has he shown interest in creating a huge grassroots movement, inspired America with his willingness to do what it takes to bring Americans together.

HELL NO!!!!

So far, I know of one comment that he has made that made him worthy of acknowledgement.

And unless Im missing something, you're going to vote him into the White House because of that one retracted comment?

QUIT ATTACKING Dean because he has shown and proven himself to be a qualified leader and has earned his spurs and his title as the Democratic frontrunner.

Let your Clarke hear from you and quit enabling him if hes not a qualified person to lead, or even RUN for that matter, being hes still got his finger in the wind.

I think many Americans could feel led on by this guy a bit. I was very interested in what he had to say, but I have to agree with you Ima that military experience is becoming more and more of a turn off every day.

A great example would be Colin Powell to show us that military experience has nothing to do with bravery and/or courage. Unless you're MacArthur or another four or five star general, seems its about taking orders and learning how to play the game of war and not much more.

[Terwilliger]

32. I'd say Mr. Clark is actually an operative working for Karl Rove

why not?

[Kahuna]

35. Hmm. You could be right...

:P

[Terwilliger]

42. Clark has a LONG way to go

he hasn't even entered, and it looks like he's playing politics. Yet another politician in the fray...WOO HOO!!

[Kahuna]

47. Wrong as usual Ter. I thought you had obtained a

sense of humor of late. Guess I was wrong.

[Pastiche423]

60. I don't know if you

were being sincere or not, but that is what it smells like to me. And it has since the 1st moment the Clarkies hit this board.

[Kahuna]

46. ALMIGHTY! He's correcting what Krugman wrote...

Not what he actually said. Sheesh! He wrote the letter to correct what Krugman said. Not what he himself said. Why can't all of you smart people get that?

Krugman wrote something that was inaccurate and he's setting the story straight. Anybody who can't see that is a hater and nothing Clark says will ever change that. You people are purposely making a mountain out of a mole hill. :puke:

[tjdee]

53. What did Krugman write?

It would clear up a lot if we had the whole picture.

But looking at the MTP quote, Clark never said the WH called him, he said that sentiment came from there, from people in the administration, and "from all over". He went on to describe the phone call he got.

I assumed he meant the White House, which is why I was surprised that the media didn't pick up on it, why he hasn't said that before, etc.
But obviously, that's why nothing more on the issue was said. His phone call wasn't from the White House, and he didn't say it was.

Ah well, let's hope at least that Clark doesn't make a habit of "correcting" himself like some other candidates...

:P

[tameszu]

55. What Krugman wrote:

From http://web.mit.edu/phoenix/www/intelligence14.html">"Pattern of Corruption":

""Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.""

So Krugman didn't exactly say that Clark got a call from the White House either, but there was some hype expansion going on regarding Clark's personal experience. Although I personally think that there hardly has been enough speculation in the press regarding the connection between neocon think tanks and GOP politicians--see AEI, the hoover Institute...and note that Iraq hit the popular consciousness almost out of nowhere...

[Liberal_Andy]

52. OK, here's what happened!...

Rove called Clark from THE WHITE HOUSE on MCI, and they (MCI) re-routed the call on ATT Worldnet through Canada!!

TA-DUMMMM!

LA

[tameszu]

54. Two things--the bigger picture

1) Shouldn't we be PLEASED that a major, well-respected foriegn affairs commentator is bluntly stating that "there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11"?

Or are there just too many people in the mainstream media who are doing this?

2) Anyone who is questioning Clark's accountability by asking why he waited 1 month to correct this misunderstanding: please note the DATE of the letter--the NYT dates it as composed July 18, 3 days after Krugman wrote his column. You will have to ask their new ombudsperson why they waited 3 weeks to print it.

[11cents]

56. Exactly

Leaving aside the usual neo-Naderites waving their citations from far-left anti-democratic websites, some of the Dean supporters here are basically seeking evidence that Clark didn't crook his pinkie correctly while saying exactly what needed to be said. Look, Dean and Clark have similar positions on the war and its aftermath, and are probably fairly similar on domestic issues as well. This is possibly bad for Dean politically, a fact that is not rationally or honestly dealt with by calling Clark a tool. Clark has several times corrected the record on where the phone call came from, while at the same time continuing to point out that the WH was trying to link Saddam to 9/11 from day one. What else do you want? Insisting on accuracy isn't, you know, a bad thing.

(Thanks for your note, BTW, tameszu -- apparently I haven't posted here often enough to answer it through the system.)

[DisgustedTX]

62. Can't trust the military-industrial complex.

Letter of apology?

Cripes.

WE CHOOSE KUCINICH!

[Kahuna]

63. Apology??? Another misrepresentation... He's not apologizing..

He's correcting what Krugman said. He's setting the record straight.